Chris Hemsworth Takes Blame for ‘Thor: Love and Thunder’ Failure: ‘I Got Caught Up in the Improv and the Wackiness’ and ‘Became a Parody of Myself’
Chris Hemsworth Takes Blame for ‘Thor: Love and Thunder’ Failure: ‘I Got Caught Up in the Improv and the Wackiness’ and ‘Became a Parody of Myself’
Noble of him to take some responsibility, but the plot elements were too dark for the tone that was established in Ragnarok. You're walking a fine line trying to make "dying of cancer" and "revenge on the gods for my dead daughter" the subject of a goofy, weird adventure series.
I thought the tone for the serious parts were pretty well done. It's just that the tone flipped on a dime and the comedy was way too cartoonish. Even without the serious stuff, it would still be too much.
The script failures aren't Chis' fault.
That comic story works because Thor Odinson isn't really in it, at all. The entire premise is a perspective shift - how it feels to be a frail human burdened with godhood.
I almost understand how (if not why) the studios didn't approve risking a huge budget film by putting all the weight on many-award-winning actress, Natalie Portman.
But adapting comic books is about taking risks. Thor: Love and Thunder needed to be entirely centered on Natalie Portman, and Chris should have been free to act goofy while Natalie delivered the heartbreaking cancer stuff.
But the script was too chicken to make that leap of faith, and the movie is worse for it.
The director's job is to give the actor direction, so even if Hemsworth's assumptions that his antics hurt the movie are true, it was the director's job to recognize that and, you know, direct the actor.
This is really all there is to it. Taika let them jump the shark instead of keep some semblance of balance especially for such a dark story line.
I thought it was fantastic.
Thank you! I see the problems with Eternals and Wakanda Forever, maybe even Quantumania, but we thought Love and Thunder was great.
Each of the movies has a few flaws, but there has been a feeding frenzy for critics who either hate comic book movies, or hate women and minorities. The hard part is separating the legitimate complaints about movie quality from the complaints about an imagined "woke" agenda.
Love and Thunder was exactly what it was supposed to be. I understand what Hemsworth is saying, and I can see how he feels that they veered too far into parody, but I hope that they don't lose that flavor of humor in future Thor movies. I also want to see Hercules (especially if Goldstein can do a better Greek accent than Crowe) pulled into Secret Wars.
Eternals was a bad script. The movie itself is bland, but not poorly made. I liked the characters more than most people, but in the tapestry of the MCU, it felt like an iron-on patch. It wanted to be important, but they have been invisible for the entire Infinity Saga. If they had retconned some of the early events to tie into the wider universe, it might have felt more connected. Having an Avenger show up to check out why a Celestial was emerging from the ground would have also been a nice touch.
Wakanda Forever was always going to be a farewell to Chadwick Boseman. For that, it was also what it needed to be. I thought Namor was a reasonable adaptation of the character, and I liked that they have set up T'Challa Jr. as a potential for the new Black Panther. Shuri won't have the gravitas to carry the mantle.
Quantumania might have been worse on the big screen, but I didn't mind the CG watching it at home. If there was an infinity stone for "likeable," you would need to squeeze it out of Paul Rudd like ooze, and it would come out of a surprising orifice. Stature was also well-cast, and I thought the humor was spot on. Kang was better in Loki, but the actor's personal decisions have made that moot for future movies. It was certainly the most flawed movie since The Dark World, but still a must-watch for MCU fans (unlike Eternals or Shang-Chi).
I'm really looking forward to Deadpool and Wolverine, and I hope it's a refreshing adrenaline injection right in the dick of the MCU.
I enjoyed Love and Thunder too. For me it's definitely the second best Thor film.
I liked Eternals and Wakanda Forever. I thought Quantumania was horrible with a couple okay scenes.
Thor L&T on the other hand had a lot of really well made scenes. It's honestly a much better movie than Quantumania. But I dislike it more because I can see a truly phenomenal movie held back by forced humor.
Having said that, I'm really glad that some people liked it. There are other projects that I'm bummed about not getting as much praise as I think they deserve. And I'm certain that others feel the same way about this. So I'm glad that this was perfect for some.
I was honestly onboard right up to the point that Thor cracked jokes immediately after learning that his people's children had been kidnapped. That should have been the moment we pivoted back to Thor the hero. For Thor to be that unserious in that moment just felt really out of character, even for wacky/funny Thor, which is a character I love personally.
I think Ragnarok struck a much better balance between funny Thor and hero Thor.
I liked it too! The Greek gods part wasn't my favorite, but loved the rest of it.
There is a time and place to play a wacky self-parody for laughs (for example, on an obscure Internet technology forum), but an adaptation of one of the darkest storyline in Marvel comics involving Gorr the God Butcher sure isn't it.
Gorr was an effective character because 1. he was extremely successful in accomplishing his goal and 2. he was right (partially, at least) about the nature of gods being selfish and indifferent which caused the self doubts in Thor, and the key point of the storyline was that in accomplishing his goal, Gorr became a hypocrite who embodies the very traits he used as reasons for his god-butchering. Neither of these ideas were effectively adapted for this movie, so what's the point of using Gorr the God Butcher.
The actors' individual performance really isn't the issue, because even the best performance from the best actors can't save a flawed script, critics will just call it a wasted performance.
I've decided - in my head canon you are the real Margot Robbie - it's much more fun imagining her nerding out about a MCU film...
Counterpoint: That's actually quite a banal narrative archetype, but the colour and character was engaging and the GNR mileau was something different. I don't think it was any more comedy-riddled than before and if people don't like that they can remember that they did the first three times.
Taking the fall for Disney, I see.
I've been a huge Taiki Waititi fan since his work with Flight of the Conchords and Boy. But this movie... One of the few movies I've turned off halfway through. The decision to bring back Natalie Portmans character was... just so stupid. They didn't have chemistry in the first movie, why force a second?
Heh I actually liked that one.
It had some moments
Of all the moments, it had some of them
Dude wants a $50 milly payday. This is so transparent it's gaseous.
Unless he was so caught up in the wackiness that he became indirectable, he gets a pass in my opinion. If that's not the tone Waititi wanted, he would have been asked to be an actor and change the performance. Chris, you're good. Keep on keepin' on.